It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ruminations on the Nature of Distance and Duration.

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   
In the Theory of Relativity, space and time (or at least how we experience space and time) are dependent on the observer's frame of reference. If you're traveling parallel to a car, and both you and the car are moving at 45 mph, relative to you, the car is not moving; yet relative to a "stationary" viewer, both you and the car are moving.

The theory also states that the faster an object is moving, the more mass it gains, and the slower time seems to pass in that frame. At first, this seemed unintuitive for me, but it gradually started to make good sense.

Lately, I've been getting these overwhelming swells of intuition telling me that distance and duration are not what they seem to be. I feel there is no actual distance between points A, B, and C, there is only entanglement. If points A, B, and C exist on a line, then A is no further from C than it is from B. Instead, A has a stronger entanglement with B than it does with C, which creates the illusion that A is closer to B than it is to C. I feel that everything is in a complex state of superposition. There is no position or momentum, just different degrees of Quantum Coherence.

I've been playing with this idea for a while now--ever since I started getting into Simulation Theory and the Holographic Principle; but it really began to solidify over the past few days after I had this dream that I can only describe as a 4D+ fractal zoom (see the video below for a rough analogy).

Everything is indeed interconnected, but not all things are equally interconnected. If reality was universally symmetrical, there would be no reality to speak of.





posted on Nov, 10 2018 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I found a video series that explores the subject of information (in the physical, metaphysical, and philosophical senses of the word). I just started watching it. For those who take an interest in this subject matter, I think it's good food for thought.




posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

There are theorists out there that question if the speed of light is constant and is the fastest movement in the universe. If that were the case, they ask how our galaxy could possibly retain its form at 52,000 light years across? If gravity were the main force that holds our galaxy or even solar system in tact and it couldn't travel faster than the speed of light, how does it stay in the shape that it does. For the perfectly formed galaxies to retain their shape and space, there would need to be a force in the universe that is instantaneous or as close to that to make the deviation meaningless.

You theory is very interesting and actually solves some of the problems that our modern cosmology can't even begin to answer. I just think that it is our current understanding and mainstream accepted theories that are confusing the true form of nature.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I enjoyed the video and would like to watch part 2 3 4 and so on....... but I can't find them...
Please post the next one if you find it.
Thanks.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest




The theory also states that the faster an object is moving, the more mass it gains


It doesn't actually gain mass. Relative mass is the claim. It is not getting bigger or denser in any way.

A fired bullet doesn't get bigger, but the energy it carries can hit like a swung sledgehammer.



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Looks like she only got as far as video 2a, which is a shame, cuz I was really looking forward to the entire series. However, she has plenty of other fascinating videos on related topics.




posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I think all mass is fundamentally relative. Rest mass is probably just the ground state of a particle's mass, but if the ground state oscillation dissipates, so goes the rest mass. I don't think magnitude necessarily has to increase with mass.

Either way, they must be intrinsically related, as they both cause time dilation.
edit on 11-11-2018 by BELIEVERpriest because: added comment



posted on Nov, 11 2018 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky



If gravity were the main force that holds our galaxy or even solar system in tact and it couldn't travel faster than the speed of light, how does it stay in the shape that it does. For the perfectly formed galaxies to retain their shape and space, there would need to be a force in the universe that is instantaneous or as close to that to make the deviation meaningless.


As far as I understand, (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), we have only been able to measure the round trip speed of light, not the one-way speed. That means we can only observe light going from point A to B, and back to A. We deduce that the time it takes for light to get from point A to B is half the time that it takes to make a round trip, but we cant experimentally prove it, because it is impossible to synchronize two or more clocks to the degree needed to make an accurate measurement.

If photons where classical particles, then I would say that the one-way speed of light is half of the round trip speed, but photons are not classical particles. They are quantum particles existing as a wave-particle duality. Theoretically, before a photon is measured, it exists as cloud of probabilistic positions and states. Once observation is made, then the photon takes a position. This is related to the probabilistic law of entropy and entanglement. So the light from a galaxy 52,000 light years away may not have needed to travel that entire distance to reach us. It could have just as easily 'teleported' here.
edit on 11-11-2018 by BELIEVERpriest because: typos



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

There is a talk on youtube posted just 2 days ago called 'Beyond the appearance of separation: Jude Currivan' which i think you will enjoy.



posted on Nov, 14 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Itisnowagain


I'm pretty sure this was the video you mentioned. It's very interesting and easy to understand. It seems that the line between theism and atheism is becoming increasingly blurred as science progresses. I can't wait to see what we discover in the coming decades.

edit on 14-11-2018 by BELIEVERpriest because: typos



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yes that's it.......
Check out 'The World from Light's Point of View' (Peter Russell) on youtube.... it's about space and time.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Yes. Very nice vid.
Will come-back to watch it all, and the others when free-time is abiding.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: ClovenSky

If photons were classical particles, ..., but photons are not classical particles. They are quantum particles existing as a wave-particle duality. Theoretically, before a photon is measured, it exists as cloud of probabilistic positions and states. Once observation is made, then the photon takes a position. This is related to the probabilistic law of entropy and entanglement. So the light from a galaxy 52,000 light years away may not have needed to travel that entire distance to reach us. It could have just as easily 'teleported' here.


I'm not convinced that before a photon is measured, it actually exists as a cloud of probabilistic positions and states (described as a wavefunction). Neither is the physicist Freeman Dyson, known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering. The 2 major points of his presentation in the video below are:

1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum mechinal language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms". Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, mentioned: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle" (what you called "classical particles").

2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened to what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities."

Also regarding your idea of a photon existing as a "cloud of probabilistic positions and states" (described as a wave function) before it's measured (a statement about the past when applied to a specific experiment that measures the behaviour of photons for example), note the point made at 22:02: "therefore no such wave function can exist" (he's talking about his own experiment there but this is also relevant to what you said). There's no need to watch the whole video, 21:23 - 23:56, keypoints at 22:05, 22:45 and 23:06:

All this shows that your statement (about the past) concerning "light from a galaxy 52,000 light years away" maybe having "teleported" here (using your arguments regarding QM to justify positing that possibility) is inappropiate (it is using the concepts of QM in an incorrect manner, to things it does not apply to, see the point made at 5:54 in the video as well).
edit on 30-11-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
In the Theory of Relativity, space and time (or at least how we experience space and time) are dependent on the observer's frame of reference. If you're traveling parallel to a car, and both you and the car are moving at 45 mph, relative to you, the car is not moving; yet relative to a "stationary" viewer, both you and the car are moving.

The theory also states that the faster an object is moving, the more mass it gains, and the slower time seems to pass in that frame. At first, this seemed unintuitive for me, but it gradually started to make good sense.

Lately, I've been getting these overwhelming swells of intuition telling me that distance and duration are not what they seem to be. I feel there is no actual distance between points A, B, and C, there is only entanglement. If points A, B, and C exist on a line, then A is no further from C than it is from B. Instead, A has a stronger entanglement with B than it does with C, which creates the illusion that A is closer to B than it is to C. I feel that everything is in a complex state of superposition. There is no position or momentum, just different degrees of Quantum Coherence.

I've been playing with this idea for a while now--ever since I started getting into Simulation Theory and the Holographic Principle; but it really began to solidify over the past few days after I had this dream that I can only describe as a 4D+ fractal zoom (see the video below for a rough analogy).

Everything is indeed interconnected, but not all things are equally interconnected. If reality was universally symmetrical, there would be no reality to speak of.






I absolutely love your ideas here. I think you are really onto something. The linear concept of time and space is a simplistic explanation. The ancient Yogis understood this.

I can't help but be a bit saddened that your brilliant thread gets so little interaction while the 8 billionth political gossip thread will go on for 20 pages.
edit on 30-11-2018 by pointessa because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I disagree with Mr. Dyson. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental property of all waves. Both the single and double slit experiments, as well as the photoelectric effect show that particles also have a wave nature (wave-particle duality). If particle trajectories yield interference patterns, then the Uncertainty Principle has to be in effect.

Either a particle is riding a pilot wave, in which case it's the pilot wave that carries the uncertainty, or the pilot wave and the particle are one in the same (the wave function). The problem is that Pilot Wave Theory fails to explain our observations, so that pretty much narrows it down to a wave function duality in my opinion. I tried to hold on to Pilot Wave Theory for a long time, but it just has too many holes in it.


edit on 30-11-2018 by BELIEVERpriest because: typos.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: pointessa

Thank you. I find that a lot of ancient ideas tend to dovetail nicely with QM; specifically Greek, Biblical, and Hindu philosophies to name a few.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join